10/06/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

denial as he did not feel he should have to build the garage to today's code. Boazd members advised there was no reason for reconsideration. 2. Saturn of North Olmsted; 27000 Lorain Itoaai: (WAD 1) Request for varia.nce (1123.12). The proposal consists of relocating one light pole. The following variances are requested: 1. An 86.2 foot candle variance for parking lot lighting, (code permits 5.0 fc, applicant shows 91.2 fc). 2. A 9.8 foot candle variance for light trespassing on other property, (code does not permit, applicant shows 9.8 fc). Note: Due to the relocation of the existing light pole the foot candle readings have increased. The light trespassing on the adjoining lot increased between .1 to .2 fc and directly below the light pole "not" being moved increased from 90.7 to 91.2 or .5 fc. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1161.12 (C)). Mr. Stoyanov with Pruitt Construction came forward to be swom in and address the request. Mr. Stoyanov advised that his client would like to move an existing light pole 18-foot to the west. The location of the light pole is in the middle of the driveway and has always been a hazard so they would like to move the pole just enough to eliminate that hazard. Due to the fact that the light pole is being moved it alters the existing readings slightly. The area in question which is being affected by the lights is a commercial pmperty to the west. He did not believe that the amount of spill over would adversely impact the Toys R Us site as the reading level is only 1/10'h or 2/10'h higher. The lights are needed for safety purposes for both sites. Mr. IVdaloney advised that the Planning Commission recommended the variance be granted if shields are placed on the lights causing the spill over. Mr. Stoyanov advised that the light causing the slightly higher reading would have a shield placed on it, but the light pole being moved was not causing the bleed-over. Mrs. Diver questioned if the high readings were pree7cisting or new. Board members questioned if Planning Commission wanted shields on all 4 lights or just one. Mr. Stoyanov advised that the readings were preeausting but due to the light pole being moved readings must meet today's codes. He reviewed that the light in the north-west corner of the building was casting the light. If shields are placed on lights which are not shining onto the neighboring lot,.readings would increase in other areas. Mr. O'Malley advised that tlie planning coanmission recommended that a shield be placed over the lightllights causing the higher readings. Mr. Conway advised that if the light causing the reading is the one which would have the shield added it could be one light out of the 4 lights on the light pole. However, the applicant agreed to comply with the Planning Commission's request. J. IVIaloney moved to grant Saturn of North Olmsted of 27000 Lorain Itoad their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of relocating one light pole and that the following variances are gramted as amended: 1. An 86.2 foot candle variance for parldng lot lighting, (code permits 5.0 fc, applicant shows 91.2 fc). 2. A 9.8 foot candle variance for light trespassing omm other prvperty, (code does not perpnit, applicant shows 9.8 fc). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1161.12 (C)). The fizture causing the higher light readings across the property line will leave a shield placed on the light. W. Kremzar seconded the motion, which was unaniIInously approvede 3. Jennifer Convertible; 26037 Lorain Road: (WRD 4) IZequest for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new sign. The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for 3 signs on a unit (2 additional), (code permits 1, applicant shows 3), section (1163.27 (A))• 2. A 34 square foot variance for total square footage of wall signs on a unit, (code permits 56 sq $, applicant shows 90 sq ft), section (1163.24 (C)). Note: An existing 36 sq ft non conformation sign has been replaced with a 30 sq ft new sign. 2 signs remain on unit as is. 3 signs approved by BZA 2/3/93 + additional sq ft(17). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.27 (A)) and (1163.24 (C)). 3 of 7